Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

What Is To Be Done?

BURNING QUESTIONS of our MOVEMENT

The “Plan” For an All-Russia
      Political Newspaper

“The most serious blunderIskracommitted in this
      connection” writes B. Krichevsky (Rabocheye Dyelo,No. 10, p. 30), charging us with a tendency to “convert theory
      into a lifeless doctrine by isolating it from practice”, “was
      its ’plan’ for a general party organisation” (viz., the article
      entitled “Where To Begin”[1]).
	  Martynov echoes this idea in
      declaring that “Iskra’s tendency to belittle the
      significance of the forward march of the drab everyday struggle
      in comparison with the propaganda of brilliant and completed
      ideas ... was crowned with the plan for the organisation of a
      party which it sets forth in the article entitled ’Where To
      Begin’ in issue No. 4” (ibid., p. 61). Finally, L. Nadezhdin hasof late joined in the chorus of indignation against this “plan”
      (the quotation marks were meant to express sarcasm). In his
      pamphlet, which we have just received, entitledThe Eve of
      the Revolution(published by the “Revolutionary-Socialist
      Group”Svoboda, whose acquaintance we have made), he
      declares (p. 126): “To speak now of an organisation held
      together by an all-Russia newspaper means propagating armchair
      ideas and armchair work” and represents a manifestation of
      “bookishness”, etc.

That our terrorist turns out to be in agreement with the
      champions of the “forward march of the drab everyday struggle”
      is not surprising, since we have traced the roots of this
      intimacy between them in the chapters on politics and
      organisation. But must draw attention here to the fact that
      Nadezhdin is the only one who has conscientiously tried to grasp
      the train of thought in an article he disliked and has made an
      attempt to reply to the point, whereasRabocheye Dyelo,
      has said nothing that is material to the subject, but has tried
      merely to confuse the question by a series of unseemly,
      demagogic sallies. Unpleasant though the task may be, we must
      first spend some time in cleansing this Augean stable.

Let us present a small selection of the expletives and
      exclamations thatRabocheye Dyelohurled at us. “It is
      not a newspaper that can create a party organisation, but vice
      versa....” A newspaper, standing above the party, outside of
      its control, and independent of it, thanks to its having its own
      staff of agents. “By what miracle hasIskraforgotten
      about the actually existing Social-Democratic organisations of
      the party to which it belongs?....” “Those who possess firm
      principles and a corresponding plan are the supreme regulators
      of the real struggle of the party and dictate to it their
      plan....” “The plan drives our active and virile
      organisations into the kingdom of shadows and desires to call
      into being a fantastic network of agents....” “WereIskra’splan carried into effect, every trace of the
      Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, which is taking shape,
      would beobliterated....” “A propagandist organ becomes an
      uncontrolled autocratic law-maker for the entire practical
      revolutionary struggle....” “How should our Party react to
      the suggestion that it becompletelysubordinated to an
      autonomous editorial board?”, etc., etc.

As the reader can see from the contents and the tone of these
      above quotations,Rabocheye Dyelo has taken
      offence.Offence, not for its own sake, but for the sake of
      the organisations and committees of our Party which it allegesIskradesires to drive into the kingdom of shadows and
      whose very traces it would obliterate. How terrible! But a
      curious thing should be noted. The article “Where To Begin”
      appeared in May 1901. The articles inRabocheye Dyeloappeared in September 1901. Now we are in mid-January
      1902. During these five months (prior to and after September),not a singlecommittee andnot a singleorganisation of the Party protested formally against this
      monster that seeks to drive them into the kingdom of shadows;
      and yet scores and hundreds of communications from all parts of
      Russia have appeared during this period inIskra, as
      well as in numerous local and non-local publications. How could
      it happen that those who would be driven into the realm of
      shadows are not aware of it and have not taken offence, though a
      third party has?

The explanation is that the committees and other organisations
      are engaged in real work and are not playing at “democracy”. The
      committees read the article “Where To Begin”, saw that it
      represented an attempt “to elaborate a definite plan for an
      organisation, sothat its formation may be undertaken from
      all aspects”;and since they knew and saw very well thatnot oneof these “sides” would dream of “setting about
      to build it” until it was convinced of its necessity, and of the
      correctness of the architectural plan, it has naturally never
      occurred to them to take offence at the boldness of the people
      who said inIskra: “In view of the pressing importance
      of the question we, on our part, take the liberty of submitting
      to the comrades a skeleton plan to be developed in greater
      detail in a pamphlet now in preparation for the print.” With a
      conscientious approach to the work, was it possible to view
      things otherwise than that if the comradesacceptedthe
      plan submitted to them, they would carry it out, not becausethey are “subordinate”, but because they would be convinced of
      its necessity for our common cause, and that if theydid not
      accept it, then the “skeleton” (a pretentious word, is it
      not?) would remain merely a skeleton? Is it not demagogy to
      fight against the skeleton of a plan, not only by “picking it to
      pieces” and advising comrades to reject it, but byincitingpeople inexperienced in revolutionary matters against its
      authorsmerely on the groundsthat theydareto “legislate” and come out as the “supreme regulators”,
      i.e., because they dareto proposean outline of a
      plan? Can our Party develop and make progress if an attemptto raiselocal functionaries to broader views, tasks,
      plans, etc., is objected to, not only with the claim that these
      views are erroneous, but on the grounds that the very “desire”to“raise” us gives “offence”? Nadezhdin,
      too, “picked” our plan “to pieces”, but he did not sink to such
      demagogy as cannot be explained solely by naivete or by
      primitiveness of political views. From the outset, he
      emphatically rejected the charge that we intended to establish
      an “inspectorship over the Party”. That is why Nadezhdin’s
      criticism of the plan can and should be answered on its merits,
      whileRabocheye Dyelodeserves only to be treated with
      contempt.

But contempt for a writer who sinks so low as to shout about
      autocracy and “subordination” does not relieve us of the duty
      of disentangling the confusion that such people create in the
      minds of their readers. Here we can clearly demonstrate to the
      world the nature of catchwords like “broad democracy”. We are
      accused of forgetting the committees, of desiring or attempting
      to drive them into the kingdom of shadows, etc. How can we reply
      to these charges when, out of considerations of secrecy, we can
      give the readeralmost no factsregarding our real
      relationships with the committees? Persons hurling vehement
      accusations calculated to provoke the crowd prove to be ahead of
      us because of their brazenness and their disregard of the duty
      of a revolutionary to conceal carefully from the eyes of the
      world the relationships and contacts which he maintains, which
      he is establishing or trying to establish. Naturally, we refuse
      once and for all to compete with such people in the field of
      “democratism”. As to the reader who is not initiated in all
      Party affairs, the only way in which we can discharge our duty
      to him is to acquaint him, not with what is and what isim Werdenbut witha particleof what
      has taken place and what may be told as a thing of the past.

The Bund hints that we are “impostors”[2]; the Union Abroad
      accuses us of attempting to obliterate all traces of the
      Party. Gentlemen, you will get complete satisfaction when we
      relate to the publicfour factsconcerning the past.

First fact.[3]The 
	  members of one of the Leagues of Struggle, who took a 
	  direct part in founding our Party and in
      sending a delegate to the Inaugural Party Congress, reached
      agreement with a member of theIskragroup regarding the
      publication of a series of books for workers that were to serve
      the entire movement. The attempt to publish the series failed  and
      the pamphlets written for it,The Tasks of the Russian
      Social-DemocratsandThe New Factory Law,[4]by a circuitous
      course and through the medium of third parties, found their way
      abroad, where they were published.[14]

Second fact. Members of the Central Committee of the Bund
      approached a member of theIskragroup with the
      proposal to organise what the Bund then described as a “literary
      laboratory”. In making the proposal, they stated that unless
      this was done, the movement would greatly retrogress. The result
      of these negotiations was the appearance of the pamphletThe
      Working-Class Cause in Russia.[5]

Third fact. The Central Committee of the Bund, via a provincial
      town, approached a member of theIskragroup with the
      proposal that he undertake the editing of the revivedRabochaya Gazetaand, of course, obtained his
      consent. The offer was later modified: the comrade in question
      was invited to act as a contributor, in view of a new plan for
      the composition of the Editorial Board. Also this proposal, ofcourse, obtained his consent.[15]Articles 
	  were sent (which we managed to preserve): “Our Programme” 
	  which was a direct protest against Bernsteinism, against the change 
	  in the line of the legal literature and ofRabochaya Mysl; 
	  “Our Immediate Task” (“to publish a Party organ 
	  that shall appear regularly and
      have close contacts with all the local groups”, the drawbacks of
      the prevailing “amateurism”), “An Urgent Question” (an
      examination of the objection that it is necessaryfirstto develop the activities of local groups before
      undertaking the publication of a common organ; an insistence on
      the paramount importance of a “revolutionary organisation” and
      on the necessity of “developing organisation, discipline, and
      the technique of secrecy to the highest degree of
      perfection”).[6]The proposal
	  to resume publication ofRabochaya Gazetawas not carried out, 
	  and the articles were not published.

Fourth fact. A member of the committee that was organising the
      second regular congress of our Party communicated to a member of
      theIskragroup the programme of the congress and
      proposed that group as editorial board of the revivedRabochaya Gazeta. This preliminary step, as it were,
      was later sanctioned by the committee to which this member
      belonged, and by the Central Committee of the Bund.[16]TheIskragroup was 
	  notified of the place and time of the
      congress and (uncertain of being able, for certain reasons, to
      send a delegate) drew up a written report for the congress. In
      the report, the idea was suggested that the mere election of a
      Central Committee would not only fail to solve the question of
      unification at a time of such complete disorder as the present,
      but would even compromise the grand idea of establishing a
      party, in the event of an early, swift, and thorough police
      round-up, which was more than likely in view of the prevailing
      lack of secrecy; that therefore, a beginning should be made by
      inviting all committees and all other organisations to support
      the revived common organ, which would establishrealcontacts between all the committees andreallytrain a group of leaders for the entire movement; and that
      the committees and the Party would very easily be able totransform such a group into a Central Committee as soon as the
      group had grown and become strong. In consequence of a number of
      police raids and arrests, however, the congress could not take
      place. For security reasons the report was destroyed, having
      been read only by a few comrades, including the representatives
      of one committee.

Let the reader now judge for himself the character of the
      methods employed by the Bund in hinting that we were impostors,
      or byRabocheye Dyelo, which accuses us of trying to
      relegate the committees to the kingdom of shadows and to
      “substitute” for the organisation of a party an organisation
      disseminating the ideas advocated by a single newspaper. It was
      to the committees,on their repeated invitation, that
      we reported on the necessity for adopting a definite plan of
      concerted activities. It was precisely for the Party
      organisation that we elaborated this plan, in articles sent toRabochaya Gazeta, and in the report to the Party
      congress, again on the invitation of those who held such an
      influential position in the Party that they took the initiative
      in its (actual) restoration. Only after thetwicerepeated attempts of the Party organisation,in
      conjunction with ourselves, officiallyto revive the
      central organ of the Party had failed, did we consider it our
      bounden duty to publish anunofficialorgan, in order
      that with thethirdattempt the comrades might have
      before them the results ofexperienceand not merely
      conjectural proposals. Now certain results of this experience
      are present for all to see, and all comrades may now judge
      whether we properly understood our duties and what should be
      thought of people that strive to mislead those unacquainted with
      the immediate past, simply because they are piqued at our having
      pointed out to some their inconsistency on the “national”
      question, and to others the inadmissibility of their vacillation
      in matters of principle.

The quintessence of the article “Where To Begin” consists
      in the fact that it discussespreciselythis question
      and gives an affirmative reply to it. As far as we know, the
      only attempt to examine this question on its merits and to prove
      that it must be answered in the negative was made byL. Nadezhdin, whose argument we reproduce in full:

“... It pleased us greatly to seeIskra(No. 4) present the question of the need for an all-Russia
      newspaper; but we cannot agree that this presentation bears
      relevance to the title ’Where To Begin’. Undoubtedly this is an
      extremely important matter, but neither a newspaper, nor a
      series of popular leaflets, nor a mountain of manifestoes, can
      serve as the basis for a militant organisation in revolutionary
      times. We must set to work to build strong political
      organisations in the localities. We lack such organisations; we
      have been carrying on our work mainly among enlightened workers,
      while the masses have been engaged almost exclusively in the
      economic struggle.If strong political organisations are not
      trained locally, what significance will even an excellently
      organised all-Russia newspaper have?It will be a burning
      bush, burning without being consumed, but firing no one!Iskrathinks that around it and in the activities in
      its behalf people will gather and organise.But they will
      find it far easier to gather and organise around activities that
      are more concrete. This something more concrete must and
      should be the extensive organisation of local newspapers, the
      immediate preparation of the workers’ forces for demonstrations,
      the constant activity of local organisations among the
      unempIoyed (indefatigable distribution of pamphlets and
      leaflets, convening of meetings, appeals to actions of protest
      against the government, etc.). We must begin live political work
      in the localities, and when the time comes to unite on this real
      basis, it will not be an artificial, paper unity; not by means
      of newspapers can such a unification of local work into an
      all-Russia cause be achieved!” (The Eve of the Revolution,
      p. 54.)

“... It pleased us greatly to seeIskra(No. 4) present the question of the need for an all-Russia
      newspaper; but we cannot agree that this presentation bears
      relevance to the title ’Where To Begin’. Undoubtedly this is an
      extremely important matter, but neither a newspaper, nor a
      series of popular leaflets, nor a mountain of manifestoes, can
      serve as the basis for a militant organisation in revolutionary
      times. We must set to work to build strong political
      organisations in the localities. We lack such organisations; we
      have been carrying on our work mainly among enlightened workers,
      while the masses have been engaged almost exclusively in the
      economic struggle.If strong political organisations are not
      trained locally, what significance will even an excellently
      organised all-Russia newspaper have?It will be a burning
      bush, burning without being consumed, but firing no one!Iskrathinks that around it and in the activities in
      its behalf people will gather and organise.But they will
      find it far easier to gather and organise around activities that
      are more concrete. This something more concrete must and
      should be the extensive organisation of local newspapers, the
      immediate preparation of the workers’ forces for demonstrations,
      the constant activity of local organisations among the
      unempIoyed (indefatigable distribution of pamphlets and
      leaflets, convening of meetings, appeals to actions of protest
      against the government, etc.). We must begin live political work
      in the localities, and when the time comes to unite on this real
      basis, it will not be an artificial, paper unity; not by means
      of newspapers can such a unification of local work into an
      all-Russia cause be achieved!” (The Eve of the Revolution,
      p. 54.)

We have emphasised the passages in this eloquent tirade that
      most clearly show the author’s incorrect judgement of our plan,
      as well as the incorrectness of his point of view in general,
      which is here contraposed to that ofIskra. Unless we
      train strong political organisations in the localities, even an
      excellently organised all-Russia newspaper will be of no
      avail. This is incontrovertible. But the whole point is thatthere is no other wayoftrainingstrong
      political organisations except through the medium of an
      all-Russia newspaper. The author missed the most important
      statementIskramadebefore it proceededto
      set forth its “plan”: that it was necessary “to call for the
      formation of a revolutionary organisation, capable of uniting
      all forces and guiding the movement in actual practice andnot in name alone, that is,an organisation ready
      at any time to support every protest and every outbrea’and
      use it to build up and consolidate the fighting forces suitable
      for the decisive struggle”. But now after the February and Marchevents, everyone will agree with this in principle, continuesIskra. Yet what we need is not a solution of the
      question in principle, but itspractical solution;we
      must immediately advance a definite constructive plan through
      which all may immediately set to work to buildfrom every
      side. Now we are again being dragged away from the
      practical solution towards something which in principle is
      correct, indisputable, and great, but which is entirely
      inadequate and incomprehensible to the broad masses of workers,
      namely, “to rear strong political organisations”! This is not
      the point at issue, most worthy author. The point is how to go
      about the rearing and how to accomplish it.

It is not true to say that “we have been carrying on our work
      mainly among enlightened workers, while the masses have been
      engaged almost exclusively in the economic struggle”. Presented
      in such a form, the thesis reduces itself toSvoboda’s
      usual but fundamentally false contraposition of the
      enlightened workers to the “masses”. In recent years, even the
      enlightened workers have been “engaged almost exclusively in the
      economic struggle”. That is the first point. On the other hand,
      the masses will never learn to conduct the political struggle
      until we helpto trainleaders for this struggle, both
      from among the enlightened workers and from among the
      intellectuals. Such leaders can acquire trainingsolelyby systematically evaluatingallthe everyday
      aspects of our political life,all attemptsat protest
      and struggle on the part of the various classes and on various
      grounds. Therefore, to talk of “rearing political organisations”
      and at the same timeto contrastthe “paper work” of a
      political newspaper to “live political work in the localities”
      is plainly ridiculous.Iskrahas adapted its “plan” for
      a newspaper to the “plan” for creating a “militant preparedness”
      to support the unemployed movement, peasant revolts, discontent
      among, the Zemstvo people, “popular indignation against some
      tsarist bashi-bazouk on the rampage”, etc. Anyone who is at all
      acquainted with the movement knows full well that the vast
      majority of local organisations havenever even dreamedof these things; that many of the prospects of “live
      political work” here indicatedhave neverbeen realised
      by a single organisation; that the attempt, for example, to callattention to the growth of discontent and protest among the
      Zemstvo intelligentsia rouses feelings of consternation and
      perplexity in Nadezhdin (“Good Lord, is this newspaper intended
      for Zemstvo people?”—TheEve, p. 129), among the
      Economists (Letter toIskra, No. 12), and among many
      practical workers. Under these circumstances, it is possible to
      “begin”onlyby inducing peopleto thinkabout
      all these things, to summarise and generalise all the diverse
      signs of ferment and active struggle. In our time, when
      Social-Democratic tasks are being degraded,the only way“live political work” can bebegun iswith live
      political agitation, which is impossible unless we have an
      all-Russia newspaper, frequently issued and regularly
      distributed.

Those who regard theIskra“plan” as a manifestation
      of “bookishness” have totally failed to understand its substance
      and take for the goal that which is suggested as the most
      suitable means for the present time. These people have not taken
      the trouble to study the two comparisons that were drawn to
      present a clear illustration of the plan.Iskrawrote:
      The publication of an all-Russia political newspaper must bethe main lineby which we may unswervingly develop,
      deepen, and expand the organisation (viz., the revolutionary
      organisation that is ever ready to support every protest and
      every outbreak). Pray tell me, when bricklayers lay bricks in,
      various parts of an enormous, unprecedentedly large structure,
      is it “paper” work to use a line to help them find the correct
      place for the bricklaying; to indicate to them the ultimate goal
      of the common work; to enable them to use, not only every brick,
      but even every piece of brick which, cemented to the bricks laid
      before and after it, forms a finished, continuous line? And are
      we not now passing through precisely such a period in our Party
      life when we have bricks and bricklayers, but lack the guide
      line for all to see and follow? Let them shout that in
      stretching out the line, we want to command. Had we desired to
      command, gentlemen, we would have written on the title page, not
      “Iskra, No. 1”, but “RabochayaGazeta, 
	  No. 3”, as we were invited to do by certain comrades, andas we
      would have had a perfect right to doafter the events
      described above. But we did not do that. We wished to have our
      hands free to wage an irreconcilable struggle against all
      pseudo-Social-Democrats; we wanted our line, if properly laid,to be respected because it was correct, and not because it had
      been laid by an official organ.

“The question of uniting local activity in central bodies runs
      in a vicious circle,” Nadezhdin lectures us; “unification
      requires homogeneity of the elements, and the homogeneity can be
      created only by something that unites; but the unifying element
      may be the product of strong local organisations which at the
      present time are by no means distinguished for their
      homogeneity.” This truth is as revered and as irrefutable as
      that we must train strong political organisations. And it is
      equally barren.Everyquestion “runs in a vicious
      circle” because political life as a whole is an endless chain
      consisting of an infinite number of links. The whole art of
      politics lies in finding and taking as firm a grip as we can of
      the link that is least likely to be struck from our hands, the
      one that is most important at the given moment, the one that
      most of all guarantees its possessor the possession of the whole
      chain.[7]If 
	  we had a crew of experienced bricklayers who had learned to
      work so well together that they could lay their bricks exactly
      as required without a guide line (which, speaking abstractly, is
      by no means impossible), then perhaps we might take hold of some
      other link. But it is unfortunate that as yet we have no
      experienced bricklayers trained for teamwork, that bricks are
      often laid where they are not needed at all, that they are not
      laid according to the general line, but are so scattered that
      the enemy can shatter the structure as if it were made of sand
      and not of bricks.

’Another comparison: “A newspaper is not only a collective
      propagandist and a collective agitator, it is also a collective
      organiser. In this respectit may be compared to the
      scaffoldingerected round a building under construction; it
      marks the contours of the structure and facilitates
      communication between the builders, permitting them to
      distribute the work and to view the common results achieved bytheir organised labour.“[8]Does 
	 this sound anything like the
     attempt of an armchair author to exaggerate his role? The
     scaffolding is not required at all for the dwelling; it is made
     of cheaper material, is put up only temporarily, and is scrapped
     for firewood as soon as the shell of the structure is
     completed. As for the building of revolutionary organisations,
     experience shows that sometimes they may be built without
     scaffolding, as the seventies showed. But at the present time we
     cannot even imagine the possibility of erecting the building we
     require without scaffolding.

Nadezhdin disagrees with this, saying: “Iskrathinks
      that around it and in the activities in its behalf people will
      gather and organise.But they will find it far easierto gather and organise aroundactivities that are more
      concrete!” Indeed, “far easier around activities that are
      more concrete”. A Russian proverb holds: “Don’t spit into a
      well, you may want to drink from it.” But there are people who
      do not object to drinking from a well that has been spat
      into. What despicable things our magnificent, legal “Critics of
      Marxism” and illegal admirers ofRabochaya Myslhave
      said in the name of this something more concrete! How restricted
      our movement is by our own narrowness, lack of initiative, and
      hesitation, which are justified with the traditional argument
      about finding it “far easier to gather around something more
      concrete”! And Nadezhdin — who regards himself as possessing a
      particularly keen sense of the “realities of life”, who so
      severely condemns “armchair” authors and (with pretensions to
      wit) accusesIskraof a weakness for seeing Economism
      everywhere, and who sees himself standing far above the division
      between the orthodox and the Critics — fails to see that with
      his arguments he contributes to the narrowness that arouses his
      indignation and that he is drinking from the most spat-in well!
      The sincerest indignation against narrowness, the most
      passionate desire to raise its worshippers from their knees,
      will not suffice if the indignant one is swept along without
      sail or rudder and, as “spontaneously” as the revolutionaries of
      the seventies, clutches at such things as “excitative terror”,“agrarian terror”, “sounding the tocsin etc. Let us take a
      glance at these “more concrete” activities around which he
      thinks it will be “far easier” to gather and organise: (1) local
      newspapers; (2) preparations for demonstrations; (3) work among
      the unemployed. It is immediately apparent that all these things
      have been seized upon at random as a pretext for saying
      something; for, however we may regard them, it would be absurd
      to see in them anything especially suitable for “gathering and
      organising”. The selfsame Nadezhdin says a few pages further:
      “It is time we simply stated the fact that activity of a very
      pitiable kind is being carried on in the localities, the
      committees are not doing a tenth of what they could do ... the
      coordinating centres we have at present are the purest fiction,
      representing a sort of revolutionary bureaucracy, whose members
      mutually grant generalships to one another; and so it will
      continue until strong local organisations grow up.” These
      remarks, though exaggerating the position somewhat, no doubt
      contain many a bitter truth; but can it be said that Nadezhdin
      does not perceive the connection between the pitiable activity
      in the localities and the narrow mental outlook of the
      functionaries, the narrow scope of their activities, inevitable
      in the circumstances of the lack of training of Party workers
      confined to local organisations? Has he, like the author of the
      article on organisation, published inSvoboda,
      forgotten how the transition to a broad local press (from
      1898) was accompanied by a strong intensification of Economism
      and “primitiveness”? Even if a “broad local press” could be
      established at all satisfactorily (and we have shown this to be
      impossible, save in very, exceptional cases) — even then the
      local organs could not “gather and organise”allthe
      revolutionary forces for ageneralattack upon the
      autocracy and for leadership of theunitedstruggle. Let us not forget that we are here discussingonlythe “rallying”, organising significance of the
      newspaper, and we could put to Nadezhdin, who defends
      fragmentation, the question he himself has ironically put: “Have
      we been left a legacy of 200,000 revolutionary organisers?”
      Furthermore, “preparations for demonstrations” cannot becontraposedtoIskra’s plan, for the very
      reason that this plan includes the organisation of the broadest
      possible demonstrationsas one of its aims; the point
      under discussion is the selection of the practicalmeans. On this point also Nadezhdin is confused, for he
      has lost sight of the fact that only forces that are “gathered
      and organised” can “prepare for” demonstrations (which hitherto,
      in the overwhelming majority of cases, have taken place
      spontaneously) and that welackpreciselythe
      abilityto rally and organise. “Work among the unemployed.”
      Again the same confusion; for this too represents one of the
      field operations of the mobilised forces and not a plan for
      mobilising the forces. The extent to which Nadezhdin here too
      underestimates the harm caused by our fragmentation, by our lack
      of “200,000 organisers”, can be seen from the fact that: many
      people (including Nadezhdin) have reproachedIskrafor
      the paucity of the news it gives on unemployment and for the
      casual nature of the correspondence it publishes about the most
      common affairs of rural life. The reproach is justified; butIskrais “guilty without sin”. We strive “to stretch a
      line” through the countryside too, where there are hardly any
      bricklayers anywhere, and we areobligedto encourageeveryonewho informs us even as regards the most common
      facts, in the hope that this will increase the number of our
      contributors in the given field and will ultimatelytrain us
      allto select facts that are really the most
      outstanding. But the material on which we can train is so scanty
      that, unless we generalise it for the whole of Russia, we shall
      have very little to train on at all. No doubt, one with at least
      as much ability as an agitator and as much knowledge of the life
      of the vagrant as Nadezhdin manifests could render priceless
      service to the movement by carrying on agitation among the
      unemployed; but such a person would be simply hiding his light
      under a bushel if he failed to inform all comrades in Russia as
      regards every step he took in his work, so that others, who, in
      the mass, still lack the ability to undertake new kinds of work,
      might learn from his example.

All without exception now talk of the importance of unity, of
      the necessity for “gathering and organising”; but in the
      majority of cases what is lacking is a definite idea of where to
      begin and how to bring about this unity. Probably all will agree
      that if we “unite”, say, the district circles in a given town,
      it will be necessary to have for this purpose common
      institutions, i.e., not merely the common title of “League”, butgenuinely common work, exchange of material, experience, and
      forces, distribution of functions, not only by districts, but
      through specialisation on a town-wide scale. All will agree that
      a big secret apparatus will not pay its way (to use a commercial
      expression) “with the resources” (in both money and manpower, of
      course) of a single district, and that this narrow field will
      not provide sufficient scope for a specialist to develop his
      talents. But the same thing applies to the co-ordination of
      activities of a number of towns, since even a specific locality
      will be and, in the history of our Social-Democratic movement,
      has proved to be, far too narrow a field; we have demonstrated
      this above in detail with regard to political agitation and
      organisational work. What we require foremost and imperatively
      is to broaden the field, establish real contacts between the
      towns on the basis of regular, common work; for fragmentation
      weighs down on the people and they are “stuck in a hole” (to use
      the expression employed by a correspondent toIskra),
      not knowing what is happening in the world, from whom to learn,
      or how to acquire experience and satisfy their desire to engage
      in broad activities. I continue to insist that we can start
      establishing real contacts only with the aid of a common
      newspaper, as the only regular, all-Russia enterprise, one which
      will summarise the results of the most diverse forms of activity
      and thereby stimulate people to march forward untiringly along
      all the innumerable paths leading to revolution, in the same way
      as all roads lead to Rome. If we do not want unity in name only,
      we must arrange for all local study circles immediately to
      assign, say, a fourth of their forces to active work for the
      common cause, and the newspaper will immediately convey to
	  them[9][9]A reservation: that is, if a given study circle sympathises
	  with the policy of the newspaper and considers it useful to
      become a collaborator, meaning by that, not only for literary
      collaboration, but for revolutionary collaboration
      generally.Note for Rabocheye Dyelo: Among
      revolutionaries who attach value to the cause and not to playing
      at democracy, who do not separate “sympathy” from the most
      active and lively participation, this reservation is taken for
      granted.—Leninthe general design, scope, and character of the cause; it will give
      them a precise indication of the most keenly felt shortcomings
      in the all-Russia activity, where agitation is lacking and
      contacts are weak, and it will point out which little wheels in
      the vast general mechanism a given study circle might repair orreplace with better ones. A study circle that has not yet begun
      to work, but which is only just seeking activity, could then
      start, not like a craftsman in an isolated little workshop
      unaware of the earlier development in “industry” or of the
      general level of production methods prevailing in industry, but
      as a participant in an extensive enterprise that reflects the
      whole general revolutionary attack on the autocracy. The more
      perfect the finish of each little wheel and the larger the
      number of detail workers engaged in the common cause, the closer
      will our network become and the less will be the disorder in the
      ranks consequent on inevitable police, raids.

The mere function of distributing a newspaper would help to
      establish actual contacts (if it is a newspaper worthy of the
      name, i.e., if it is issued regularly, not once a month like a
      magazine, but at least four times a month). At the present time,
      communication between towns on revolutionary business is an
      extreme rarity, and, at all events, is the exception rather than
      the rule. If we had a newspaper, however, such communication
      would become the rule and would secure, not only the
      distribution of the newspaper, of course, but (what is more
      important) an exchange of experience, of material, of forces,
      and of resources. Organisational work would immediately acquire
      much greater scope, and the success of one locality would serve
      as a standing encouragement to further perfection; it would
      arouse the desire to utilise the experience gained by comrades
      working in other parts of the country. Local work would become
      far richer and more varied than it is at present. Political and
      economic exposures gathered from all over Russia would provide
      mental food for workers of all trades andall stagesofdevelopment; they would provide material and occasion
      for talks and readings on the most diverse subjects, which
      would, in addition, be suggested by hints in the legal press, by
      talk among the people, and by “shamefaced” government
      statements. Every outbreak, every demonstration, would be
      weighed and, discussed in its every aspect in all parts of
      Russia and would thus stimulate a desire to keep up with, and
      even surpass, the others (we socialists do not by any means
      flatly reject all emulation or all “competition”!) and
      consciously prepare that which at first, as it were, sprang up
      spontaneously,a desire to take advantage of the favourable
      conditions in a given district or at a given moment for
      modifying the plan of attack, etc. At the same time, this
      revival of local work would obviate that desperate, “convulsive”
      exertion of all efforts and risking ofallforces which
      every single demonstration or the publication of every single
      issue of a local newspaper now frequently entails. On the one
      hand, the police would find it much more difficult to get at the
      “roots”, if they did not know in what district to dig down for
      them. On the other hand, regular common work would train our
      people to adjust the force of agivenattack to the
      strength of the given contingent of the common army (at the
      present time hardly anyone ever thinks of doing that, because in
      nine cases out of ten these attacks occur spontaneously); such
      regular common work would facilitate the “transportation” from
      one place to another, not only of literature, but also of
      revolutionary forces.

In a great many cases these forces are now being bled white on
      restricted local work, but under the circumstances we are
      discussing it would be possible to transfer a capable agitator
      or organiser from one end of the country to the other, and the
      occasion for doing this would constantly arise. Beginning with
      short journeys on Party business at the Party’s expense, the
      comrades would become accustomed to being maintained by the
      Party, to becoming professional revolutionaries, and to training
      themselves as real political leaders.

And if indeed we succeeded in reaching the point when all, or
      at least a considerable majority, of the local committees local
      groups, and study circles took up active work for the common
      cause, we could, in the not distant future, establish a weekly
      newspaper for regular distribution in tens of thousands of
      copies throughout Russia. This newspaper would become part of an
      enormous pair of smith’s bellows that would fan every spark of
      the class struggle and of popular indignation into a general
      conflagration. Around what is in itself still a very innocuous
      and very small, but regular andcommon, effort, in the
      full sense of the word, a regular army of tried fighters would
      systematically gather and receive their training. On the ladders
      and scaffolding of this general organisational structure there
      would soon develop and come to the fore Social-DemocraticZhelyabovs from among our revolutionaries and Russian Bebels
      from among our workers, who would take their place at the head
      of the mobilised army and rouse the whole people to settle
      accounts with the shame and the curse of Russia.

That is what we should dream of!

“We should dream!” I wrote these words and became alarmed. I
      imagined myself sitting at a “unity conference” and opposite me
      were theRabocheye Dyeloeditors and
      contributors. Comrade Martynov rises and, turning to me, says
      sternly: “Permit me to ask you, has an autonomous editorial
      board the right to dream without first soliciting the opinion of
      the Party committees?” He is followed by Comrade Krichevsky; who
      (philosophically deepening Comrade Martynov, who long ago
      rendered Comrade Plekhanov more profound) continues even more
      sternly: “I go further. I ask, has a Marxist any right at all to
      dream, knowing that according to Marx, mankind always sets
      itself the tasks it can solve and that tactics is a process of
      the growth of Party tasks which grow together with the
      Party?”

The very thought of these stern questions sends a cold shiver
      down my spine and makes me wish for nothing but a place to hide
      in. I shall try to hide behind the back of Pisarev.

“There are rifts and rifts,” wrote Pisarev of the rift between
      dreams and reality. “My dream may run ahead of the natural march
      of events or may fly off at a tangent in a direction in which no
      natural march of events will ever proceed. In the first case my
      dream will not cause any harm; it may even support and augment
      the energy of the working men.... There is nothing in such
      dreams that would distort or paralyse labour-power. On the
      contrary, if man were completely deprived of the ability to
      dream in this way, if he could not from time to time run ahead
      and mentally conceive, in an entire and completed picture, the
      product to which his hands are only just beginning to lend
      shape, then I cannot at all imagine what stimulus there would be
      to induce man to undertake and complete extensive and strenuous
      work in the sphere of art, science, and practicalendeavour.... The rift between dreams and reality causes no harm
      if only the person dreaming believes seriously in his dream, if
      he attentively observes life, compares his observations with his
      castles in the air, and if, generally speaking, he works
      conscientiously for the achievement of his fantasies. If there
      is some connection between dreams and life then all is

      well.”[17]

Of this kind of dreaming there is unfortunately too little in
      our movement. And the people most responsible for this are those
      who boast of their sober views, their “closeness” to the
      “concrete”, the representatives of legal criticism and of illegal
      “tail-ism”.

From what has been said the reader will see that our
      “tactics-as-plan” consists in rejecting an immediatecallfor assault; in demanding “to lay effective siege
      to the enemy fortress”; or, in other words, in demanding that
      all efforts be directed towards gathering, organising, andmobilisinga permanent army. When we ridiculedRabocheye Dyelofor its leap from Economism to shouting
      for an assault (for which it clamoured inApril 1901,in“Listok” Rabochego Dyela, 157 No. 6) it of
      course came down on us with accusations of being “doctrinaire”,
      of failing to understand our revolutionary duty, of calling for
      caution, etc. Of course, we were not in the least surprised to
      hear these accusations from those who totally lack principles
      and who evade all arguments by references to a profound
      “tactics-as-process”, any more than we were surprised by the
      fact that these charges were repeated by Nadezhdin, who in
      general has a supreme contempt for durable programmes and the
      fundamentals of tactics.

It is said that history does not repeat itself. But Nadezhdin
      exerts every effort to cause it to repeat itself and he
      zealously imitates Tkachov[18]in 
	  strongly condemning “revolutionary
      culturism”, in shouting about “sounding the tocsin” and about a
      special “ eve-of-the-revolution point of view”, etc.,
      Apparently, he has forgotten the well-known maxim that while an
      original historical event represents a tragedy, its replica is
      merely a farce.[19]The attempt to 
	  seize power, which was prepared by the preaching of Tkachov and carriedout by means of the “terrifying” terror that did really 
	  terrify, had grandeur, but
      the “excitative” terror of a Tkachov the Little is simply
      ludicrous, particularly so when it is supplemented with the idea
      of an organisation of average people.

“IfIskrawould only emerge from its sphere of
    bookishness,” wrote Nadezhdin, “it would realise that these
    (instances like the worker’s letter toIskra, No. 7,
    etc.) are symptoms of the fact that soon, very soon, the
    ’assault’ will begin, and to speak now [sic!] of an organisation
    linked with an all-Russia newspaper means to propagate armchair
    ideas and armchair activity.”  What an unimaginable muddle — on
    the one hand, excitative terror and an “organisation of average
    people”, along with the opinion that it is far “easier” to gather
    around something “more concrete”, like a local newspaper, and, on
    the other, the view that to talk “now” about an all-Russia
    organisation means to propagate armchair thoughts, or, bluntly
    put, “now” it is already too late! But what of the “extensive
    organisation of local newspapers” — is it not too late for that,
    my dear L. Nadezhdin? And compare with thisIskra’s point
    of view and tactical line: excitative terror is nonsense; to talk
    of an organisation of average people and of theextensivepublication of local newspapers means to fling the door wide
    open to Economism. We must speak of a single all-Russia
    organisation of revolutionaries, and it will never be too
    late to talk of that until the real, not a paper, assault
    begins.

“Yes, as far as organisation is concerned the
    situation is anything but brilliant,” continues Nadezhdin. “Yes,Iskrais entirely right in saying that the mass of our
    fighting forces consists of volunteers and insurgents.... You do
    well to give such a sober picture of the state of our forces. But
    why, at the same time, do you forget thatthe masses are not
    ours at all, and consequently, willnot ask uswhen
    to begin military operations; they will simply go and
    ’rebel’.... When the crowd itself breaks out with its elemental
    destructive force itmayoverwhelm and sweep aside the
    ’regular troops’ among whom we prepared all the time to introduce
    extremely systematic organisation, but nevermanagedto
    do so.” (Our italics.)

“Yes, as far as organisation is concerned the
    situation is anything but brilliant,” continues Nadezhdin. “Yes,Iskrais entirely right in saying that the mass of our
    fighting forces consists of volunteers and insurgents.... You do
    well to give such a sober picture of the state of our forces. But
    why, at the same time, do you forget thatthe masses are not
    ours at all, and consequently, willnot ask uswhen
    to begin military operations; they will simply go and
    ’rebel’.... When the crowd itself breaks out with its elemental
    destructive force itmayoverwhelm and sweep aside the
    ’regular troops’ among whom we prepared all the time to introduce
    extremely systematic organisation, but nevermanagedto
    do so.” (Our italics.)

Astounding logic!For the very reasonthat the “masses
    are not ours” it is stupid and unseemly to shout about an
    immediate “assault”, for assault means attack by regular troops
    and not a spontaneous mass upsurge. For the very reason that the
    massesmayoverwhelm and sweep aside the regular troopswe must without fail “manage to keep up” with the spontaneous
    upsurge by our work of “introducing extremely systematic
    organisation” in the regular troops, for the more we “manage” to
    introduce such organisation the more probably will the regular
    troops not be overwhelmed by the masses, but will take their place
    at their head. Nadezhdin is confused because he imagines that
    troops in the course of systematic organisation are engaged in
    something that isolates them from the masses, when in actuality
    they are engaged exclusively in all-sided and all-embracing
    political. agitation, i.e., precisely in work thatbrings
    closer and merges into a single wholethe elemental
    destructive force of the masses and the conscious destructive
    force of the organisation of revolutionaries. You, gentlemen, wish
    to lay the blame where it does not belong. For it is precisely theSvobodagroup that, by including terrorin its
    programme, calls for an organisation of terrorists, and
    such an organisation would indeed prevent our troops from
    establishing closer contacts with the masses, which,
    unfortunately, are still not ours, and which, unfortunately, do
    not yet ask us, or rarely ask us, when and how to launch their
    military operations.

“We shall miss the revolution itself,” continues Nadezhdin in
    his attempt to scareIskra, “in the same way as we missed
    ..the recent events, which came upon us like a bolt from the
    blue.” This sentence, taken in connection with what has been
    quoted above, clearly demonstrates the absurdity of the
    “eve-of-therevolution point of view” invented bySvoboda.[10]Plainly
	put, this special “point of view” boils down to this
    that it is too late “now” to discuss and prepare. If that is the
    case, most worthy opponent of “bookishness”, what was the use of
    writing a pamphlet of 132 pages on questions of theory[11][11]In hisReview of Questions of Theory, Nadezhdin, by the
      way, made almost no contribution whatever to the discussion of
      questions of theory, apart, perhaps, from the following passage,
      a most peculiar one from the “eve-of-the-revolution point of
      view”: “Bernsteinism, on the whole, is losing its acuteness for
      us at the present moment, as is the question whether
      Mr. Adamovich will prove that Mr. Struve has already earned a
      lacing, or, on the contrary, whether Mr. Struve will refute
      Mr. Adamovich and will refuse to resign — it really makes no
      difference, because the hour of revolution has struck”
      (p. 110). One can hardly imagine a more glaring illustration of
      Nadezhdin’s infinite disregard for theory. We have proclaimed“the eve of the revolution”,therefore“it 
	  really makes no difference” whether or not the orthodox will succeed in
      finally driving the Critics from their positions! Our wiseacre
      fails to see that it is precisely during the revolution that we
      shall stand in need of the results of our theoretical battles
      with the Critics in order to be able resolutely to combat theirpracticalpositions!—Leninand tactics”?  Don’t you think it would have been more becoming for
    the  “eve-of-the-revolution point of view” to have issued
    132,000 leaflets containing the summary call, “Bang them
    — knock’em down!”?

Those who make nation-wide political agitation the cornerstone
    of their programme,their tactics, and their organisational
    work, asIskradoes, stand the least risk of missing
    the revolution. The people who are now engaged throughout Russia
    in weaving the network of connections that spread from the
    all-Russia newspaper not only did not miss the spring events, but,
    on the contrary, gave us an opportunity to foretell them.  Nor did
    they miss the demonstrations that were described inIskra,
    Nos. 13 and 14; on the contrary, they took part in
    them, clearly realising that it was their duty to come to the aid
    of the spontaneously rising masses and, at the same time, through
    the medium of the newspaper, help all the comrades in Russia to
    inform themselves of the demonstrations and to make use of their
    gathered experience. And if they live theywillnot miss
    the revolution, which, first and foremost, will demand of us
    experience in agitation, ability to support (in a
    Social-Democratic manner) every protest, as well as direct the
    spontaneous movement, while safeguarding it from the mistakes of
    friends and the traps of enemies.

We have thus come to the last reason that compels us so
    strongly to insist on the plan of an organisation centred round an
    all-Russia newspaper, through the common work for the common
    newspaper. Only such organisation will ensure theflexibilityrequired of a militant Social-Democratic organisation, viz.,
    the ability to adapt itself immediately to the most diverse and
    rapidly changing conditions of struggle, the ability, “on the one
    hand, to avoid an open battle against an overwhelming enemy, when
    the enemy has concentrated all his forces at one spot and yet, on
    the other, to take advantage of his unwieldiness and to attack himwhen and where he least expects it”.[12]It would be a grievous error indeed
    to build the Party organisation in anticipation only of outbreaks
    and street fighting, or only upon the “forward march of the drab
    everyday struggle”. We mustalwaysconduct our everyday
    work and always be prepared for every situation, because very
    frequently it is almost impossible to foresee when a period of
    outbreak will give way to a period of calm. In the instances,
    however, when it is possible to do so, we could not turn this
    foresight to account for the purpose of reconstructing our
    organisation; for in an autocratic country these changes take
    place with astonishing rapidity, being sometimes connected with a
    single night raid by the tsarist janizaries.[20]And 
	the revolution itself must not by any means be regarded as a single act 
	(as the Nadezhdins apparently imagine), but as a series of more or less
    powerful outbreaks rapidly alternating with periods of more or
    less complete calm. For that reason, the principal content of the
    activity of our Party organisation, the focus of this activity,
    should be work that is both possible and essential in the period
    of a most powerful outbreak as well as in the period of complete
    calm, namely, work of political agitation, connected throughout
    Russia, illuminating all aspects of life, and conducted among the
    broadest possible strata of the masses. But this workis
    unthinkablein present-day Russia without an all-Russia
    newspaper, issued very frequently. The organisation, which will
    form round this newspaper, the organisation of itscollaborators(in the broad sense of the word, i.e., all
    those working for it), will be readyforeverything, from
    upholding the honour, the prestige, and the continuity of the
    Party in periods of acute revolutionary “depression” to preparing
    for, appointing the time for, and carrying out thenation-wide
    armed uprising.

Indeed, picture to yourselves a very ordinary occurrence in
    Russia-the total round-up of our comrades in one or several
    localities. In the absence of asingle, common, regular
    activity that combines all the local organisations, such round-ups
    frequently result in the interruption of the work for many
    months. If, however, all the local organisations had one common
    activity, then, even in the event of a very serious round-up, two
    or three energetic persons could in the course of a few weeks
    establish contact between the common centre and new youth circles,
    which, as we know, spring up very quickly even now. And when the
    common activity, hampered by the arrests, is apparent to all, new
    circles will be able to come into being and make connections with
    the centre even more rapidly.

On the other hand, picture to yourselves a popular
    uprising. Probably everyone will now agree that we must think of
    this and prepare for it. But how? Surely the Central Committee
    cannot appoint agents to all localities for the purpose of
    preparing the uprising. Even if we had a Central Committee, it
    could achieve absolutely nothing by such appointments under
    present-day Russian conditions. But a network of agents[13]that
    would form in the course of establishing and distributing the
    common newspaper would not have to “sit about and wait” for the
    call for an uprising, but could carry on the regular activity that
    would guarantee the highest probability of success in the event ofan uprising. Such activity would strengthen our contacts with the
    broadest strata of the working masses and with all social strata
    that are discontented with the autocracy, which is of such
    importance for an uprising. Precisely such activity would serve to
    cultivate the ability to estimate correctly the general political
    situation and, consequently, the ability to select the proper
    moment for an uprising. Precisely such activity would train all
    local organisations to respond simultaneously to the same
    political questions, incidents, and events that agitate the whole
    of Russia and to react to such “incidents” in the most vigorous,
    uniform, and expedient manner possible; for an uprising is in
    essence the most vigorous, most uniform, and most expedient
    “answer” of the entire people to the government. Lastly, it is
    precisely such activity that would train all revolutionary
    organisations throughout Russia to maintain the most continuous,
    and at the same time the most secret, contacts with one another,
    thus creatingrealParty unity; for without such contacts
    it will be impossible collectively to discuss’ the plan for the
    uprising and to take the necessary preparatory measures on the
    eve, measures that must be kept in the strictest secrecy.

In a word, the “plan for an all-Russia political newspaper”,
    far from representing the fruits of the labour of armchair
    workers, infected with dogmatism and bookishness (as it seemed to
    those who gave but little thought to it), is the most practical
    plan for immediate and all-round preparation of the uprising,
    with, at the same time, no loss of sight for a moment of the
    pressing day-to-day work.

[1]SeeCollected Works, Vol. 5, pp. 13-24—Ed.

[2]Iskra, No. 8.The reply of the
    Central Committee of the General Jewish Union of Russia and Poland
    to our article on the national question.—Lenin

[3]We
    deliberately refrain from relating these facts[21]in the sequence of their occurrence.—Lenin

[4]SeeCollected Works,Vol. 2, pp. 323-51 and 267-315—Ed.

[5]The
    author requests me to state that, like his previous pamphlets,
    this one was sent to the Union Abroad on the assumption that its
    publications were edited by the Emancipation of Labour group
    (owing to certain circumstances, he could not then — February
    1899 — know of the change in editorship). The pamphlet will be
    republished by the League[22]at an early date.—Lenin

[6]SeeCollected Works,Vol. 4, pp. 210-14, 215-20, 221-26—Ed.

[7]Comrade
    Krichevsky and Comrade Martynov! I call your attention to this
    outrageous manifestation of “autocracy”, “uncontrolled
    authority”, “supreme regulating”, etc. just think of it: a
    desire topossessthe whole chain!! Send in a complaint
    at once. Here you have a ready-made topic for two leading
    articles for No. 12 ofRabocheye Dyelo!—Lenin

[8]Martynov, in quoting the first sentence of this passage inRabocheye Dyelo(No. 10, p. 62), omitted the second, as
    if desiring to emphasise either his unwillingness to discuss the
    essentials of the question or his inability to understand them.—Lenin

[9]Note:This footnote has 
	been moved into the body of the document.

[10]The Eve 
	of the Revolution, p. 62.—Lenin

[11]Note:This footnote has
	been moved into the body of the document.

[12]Iskra, No. 4, “Where To Begin”. “Revolutionary
    culturists, who do not accept the eve-of-the-revolution point of
    view, are not in the least perturbed by the prospect of working
    for a long period of time,” writes Nadezhdin (p. 62). This
    brings us to observe: Unless we are able to devise political
    tactics and an organisational plan forwork over a very long
    period, while ensuring, inthe very process of this
    work, our Party’s readiness to be at its post and fulfil
    its duty in every contingency whenever the march of events is
    accelerated — unless we succeed in doing this, we shall prove
    to he but miserable political adventurers. Only Nadezhdin, who
    began but yesterday to describe himself as a Social-Democrat,
    can forget that the aim of Social-Democracy is to transform
    radically the conditions of life of the whole of mankind and
    that for this reason it is not permissible for a Social-Democrat to be 
	“perturbed” by the question of the duration of the work.—Lenin

[13]Alas, alas! Again I have let slip that awful word “agents”,
    which jars so much on the democratic cars of the Martynovs! I
    wonder why this word did not offend the heroes of the seventies
    and yet off ends the amateurs of the nineties? I like the word,
    because it clearly and trenchantly indicatesthe common
    causeto which all the agents bend their thoughts and
    actions, and if I had to replace this word by another, the only
    word I might select would be the word “collaborator”, if it did
    not suggest a certain bookishness and vagueness. The thing we
    need is a military organisation of agents. However, the numerous
    Martynovs (particularly abroad), whose favourite pastime is
    “mutual grants of generalships to one another”, may instead of
    saying “passport agent” prefer to say, “Chief of the Special
    Department for Supplying Revolutionaries with
    Passports”. etc.—Lenin

[21]Lenin added this footnote for purposes of secrecy. The facts are
      enumerated in the order in which they actually took place.

[14]The reference is to the negotiations between the St. Petersburg League
      of Struggle for the Emancipation of the Working Class and Lenin who, in the
      second half of 1897, wrote the two pamphlets mentioned.

[22]The reference is to the League of Russian Revolutionary
      Social-Democracy Abroad.

[15]The reference is to the negotiations between Lenin and the Central
      Committee of the Bund.

[16]The “fourth fact” of which Lenin speaks was the
      attempt of the Union of Russian Social-Democrats Abroad and the Bund to
      convene the Second Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. in the spring of 1900. The
      “member of the committee” referred to was I. H. Lalayants (a
      member of the Ekaterinoslav Social-Democratic Committee) who came to Moscow
      in February 1900 for talks with Lenin.

[17]Lenin cites the article by D. I. Pisarev “Blunders of Immature
      Thinking”.

[18]Tkachov, P. N.(1844-1885)—one of the ideologists of
      revolutionary Narodism, a follower of the Auguste Blanqui.

[19]Lenin refers to the following passage from Marx’sThe Eighteenth
      Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: “Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts
      and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were,
      twice. He forgot to add: the first time as tragedy, the second as farce”
      (see Marx and Engels,Selected Works, Vol. 1, Moscow, 1958,
      p. 247).

[20]Janizaries—privileged Turkish infantry, abolished in
      1826. The janizaries plundered the population and were known for their
      unusual brutality. Lenin called the tsarist police “janizaries”.